Country School Grant Program Scoring Rubric
Significance
| Resource/Project Significance | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly identifies the historical resource and presents a strong evidence-based argument why this historical resource has value to the people of Iowa. Applicant provides clear evidence to support their argument for historical significance. Reviewer has no questions about the significance of this historical resource. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant identifies the historical resource and presents an adequate argument why this historical resource has value to the people of Iowa. Applicant provides some evidence to support their argument for historical significance. Reviewer has questions about the significance of this historical resource. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant insufficiently identifies the historical resource and/or presents an inadequate argument or evidence to support the claim of historical significance. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant fails to identify the historical resource and/or fails to present an argument or evidence to support the claim of historical significance. |
| Historical Significance | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly explains how the historical resource has national or international significance or has a connection to national or international issues. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant clearly explains how the historical resource has state or local significance or has a connection to state or local issues. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant insufficiently explains the historical resource’s international, national, state or local significance or its connection to international, national, state or local issues. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant fails to make the case for the historical resource’s international, national, state or local significance or its connection to international, national, state or local issues. |
Implementation
| Project Overview | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly describes the proposed scope of work. Applicant references appropriate professional standards and how they will be applied to this project. Reviewer understands what the project is, has confidence that the project has been well-planned, will be done according to appropriate standards, and will be successfully implemented. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant describes the proposed scope of work, but leaves the reviewer with questions about some of the following: the project specifics, whether it is the right thing to do, how much planning has been done, or whether the applicant understands how to apply the appropriate professional standards. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant provides insufficient description of the proposed scope of work. There is limited evidence of planning, and/or limited explanation about how professional standards will be applied. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant provides no explanation about what they will do or how it will be done, and/or the work proposed does not meet appropriate professional standards. There is no mention of appropriate professional standards. Reviewer does not have confidence that standards will be followed, or that the project will be successfully implemented. |
| Project Timeline | |||
| Exemplary - 3 The timeline is appropriate and realistic for all proposed work elements. The reviewer has no question that the project will be completed in the grant contract time period. |
Adequate - 2 |
Needs Improvement - 1 The timeline is not appropriate for most of the work elements or reviewer questions if the entire project can be completed in the grant contract period or questions if the applicant has underestimated the amount of time required. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 The timeline is either not provided, not appropriate for all of the work elements, or the reviewer does not believe the project can be completed in the grant contract period. |
| Supporting Documents and Photos | |||
| Exemplary - 3 The relevant supporting material, including photographs of the resource, drawings, mortar analysis, rehabilitation studies, or letters of support provided*, clearly help the reviewer understand the need for all work items in the proposed scope of work. *Applicant does not need to provide all listed items, only those relevant to the project. |
Adequate - 2 The applicant provides adequate supporting material to help the reviewer understand the need for most work items in the proposed scope of work. |
Needs Improvement - 1 The applicant provides some helpful supporting material but the body of material is incomplete for the reviewer to understand the need for the proposed scope of work. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 The supporting material provided is unclear and does not help the reviewer understand the need for the proposed scope of work, or the supporting material is not provided. |
Community Impact
| Importance to Local Community | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly identifies the local community or audience and makes an evidence-based argument for how this project will have an impact on the local community or audience. The applicant clearly describes how they will measure the project’s impact. Applicant clearly identifies a strong plan for the educational uses of the school building. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant adequately identifies the local community or audience, in general terms, and makes an evidence-based argument for how this project will have an impact on the local community or audience. The applicant adequately describes how they will measure the project’s impact. Applicant identifies an adequate plan for the educational uses of the school building. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant insufficiently identifies the local community or audience and/or makes an unconvincing argument for how this project will impact the local community or audience. Reviewer has questions about the potential for impact or how the project’s impact will be measured. Applicant identifies an insufficient plan for the educational uses of the school building. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant does not identify the local community or audience and does not make an argument for this project’s impact. Alternatively, this project has no impact on the local community or audience. Applicant does not identify a plan for the educational uses of the school building. |
| Project Accessibility and Promotion | |||
| Exemplary - 3 The historical resource and relevant work products of this grant are or will be regularly accessible to the public. The applicant identifies a strong plan for how the resource and work products will be shared on site and across multiple platforms including web sites, and social and traditional media. |
Adequate - 2 The historical resource and relevant work products are accessible to the public, but the reviewer has questions about the applicant’s plan for facilitating access and communication. Alternatively, the applicant identifies a strong plan for facilitating access and communication, but public access to the historical resource will be on a limited basis. |
Needs Improvement - 1 The historical resource and relevant work products are accessible to the public on a limited basis. The applicant describes a weak plan for facilitating access and communication. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 The historical resource and relevant work products are not accessible to the public. The applicant does not identify a plan for how the resource will be shared on site or across multiple platforms including web sites, and social and traditional media. |
| Sustainability | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly explains how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant makes a compelling case that there is a critical need for the project. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant adequately explains how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant makes an adequate case that there is a critical need for the project. The reviewer has some questions about either sustainability or critical need. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant provides an insufficient explanation for how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant makes a weak case that there is a critical need for the project. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant does not explain how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant does not make a case that there is a critical need for the project. |
Budget
| Budget Clarity and Breadth of Matching Support | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Project budget and intended use of requested funds are clear. Applicant identifies match beyond staff salaries and in-kind match. |
Adequate - 2 Project budget and intended use of funds are adequately explained, but the applicant does not identify potential sources of match or they only include staff salaries and in-kind match. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Project budget or intended use of requested funds is unclear or applicant does not identify potential sources of match. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant does not explain how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant does not make a case that there is a critical need for the project. |
| Budget Propriety | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Budget is appropriate for the type of work proposed and there is a clear connection between the scope of work and the budget items. Applicant provides evidence that budget numbers are reliable. |
Adequate - 2 Budget is appropriate for most work items. There may or may not be a clear connection between the scope of work and all budget items. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Budget is not appropriate for most work items and/or there is a weak connection between the scope of work and budget items. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Budget is not appropriate for work items and/or there is no connection between the scope of work and budget items. |